450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us . by AURaptor

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I'll ask again, since you keep avoiding the issue in the other thread...

Quote:

Since you insist that waterboarding isn't torture unless it's done to someone in uniform, let me put a scenario to you:

Say the Iranians have tried and convicted a 30-year-old Iranian-American woman - an American citizen not serving in the military or the diplomatic corps - on charges of spying. Now, since she's clearly NOT a soldier, nor wearing the uniform of any recognized armed forces, then they are clearly within their rights to waterboard her, are they not? I mean, they can use whatever means necessary to "break" her, since she is, in essence, a "terrorist" - at least in their eyes, and according to their law.

So you're totally okay with them doing this, yes?

By the way, her name is Roxana Saberi. She was a former contestant in a Miss North Dakota beauty pageant, holds two masters degrees, and is a graduate of Northwestern, with a degree in journalism.

Iran has a golden opportunity here. They can use the exact same methods that the U.S. has used, and we can't say shit about it, OR they can gain international favor by NOT torturing this girl, and then they end up looking more civilized than we do. Either way, it doesn't work out too well for us...

By the way, your thread title is misleading. "Interrogating" those who want to kill us isn't a worse crime than them wanting to kill us. TORTURING those who want to kill us actually IS a worse crime than them wanting to kill us.

Hell, right now I *may* WANT to kill you - that's not a crime at all. Some would even call it good common sense. I'm not saying I actually want to kill you, just pointing out that even if I did want to kill you, that's not a crime. Torturing me to find out if I wanted to kill you would be a crime, though.

And hey, it's not like the previous administration didn't use events to expand their power and grab more, so that's kind of a non-starter as an issue. Hell, Bush figured if he could get us neck-deep in the bullshit in Iraq, we'd HAVE to re-elect him, and then he'd be able to go on an even BIGGER power-grab.

And you were his loyal cheerleader all the way. Tell me, Rappy the Wonder Dog, did you borrow his darlin' little cheerleader outfit that he wore back in his school daze, and did you sniff the crotch of his panties before you put them on?

You've always been about power for the sake of power, and you've never cared one iota who gets killed along the way - be they "camel jockeys", "Achmeds", or anyone else you don't like because of the color of their skin.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:00 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Is it right to make a man feel like he's drowning?

That's one of the central questions of this issue, and when I try to figure out why there's any confusion over it, I can only come to one inescapable conclusion.

The people who advocate torture (whether or not they are bold enough to use the term) do so because they believe they are torturing someone IN SELF DEFENSE.

I came to this conclusion when I realized that I would never murder someone, but I would kill them IN SELF DEFENSE. As abominable as I consider murder to be, I consider killing under certain CIRCUMSTANCES to be JUSTIFIED.

Once I came to this shocking realization, I understood Auraptor and his ilk, who see no difference between TORTURE and ANY OTHER ACTION taken in SELF DEFENSE. The aspect of danger, to themselves or their countrymen, makes the act JUSTIFIED to their minds.

Where I realized the moral divide lay is in the directness and immediacy of the intervention. Killing someone who is trying to kill you is a direct and immediate action to stop a verifiably imminent danger.

This is the main thrust of the difference. The nearness and certainty of danger that narrows a panoply of options to just a critical few.

I believe that advocates of torture lack the ability to look deeper into a situation and recognize when danger needs must be met with the hard option, and when a softer sideways path will do more ably.

I also believe that advocates of torture lack the emotional maturity to recognize how torture debases and contaminates the torturer. It is even more dehumanizing to torture than to be tortured. It is a process that leaves a psychic wound on the processor.

Perhaps it is Hollywood programming that makes them believe that torture is the best way to get information that will save lives. Perhaps it is a sense of fear they themselves have of torture, that they believe they would surrender important details quickly and accurately if they themselves were tortured by an enemy.

I have come to the conclusion that advocates of torture are by-and-large misguided, and not necessarily evil. I mean, certainly there are sadists among them, but they can't all be sadists.

Does anyone else share these thoughts?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:16 PM

BYTEMITE

The guards at Abu Grhaib seemed to enjoy it... But I'm hoping they're exceptions.

Mostly I think that situation arose from a lack of training. They weren't made aware of Geneva Conventions, and psychological experiments have shown that prison situations can generate those kinds of abuses if the guards aren't trained in proper methodology.

Supposedly, there's something about being given complete power over people, and the dehumanizing circumstances of prison itself, that can bring out the worst in some of the people on duty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:19 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

I think that in the past that the US executed people for doing the same thing to American prisoners quite telling.

Does that it might save lives make it right ?

Lets say I am fighting Americans...

Is it okay if I start waterboarding, etc my prisoners of the off chance I can learn something of your plans ? Maybe save some of my guys

Will AURaptor agree in that case, or will he scream bloody murder at that ?

Come on Rap, admit it is okay to waterboard US troops, or admit to being a hypocrite

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This is the main thrust of the difference. The nearness and certainty of danger that narrows a panoply of options to just a critical few.

I believe that advocates of torture lack the ability to look deeper into a situation and recognize when danger needs must be met with the hard option, and when a softer sideways path will do more ably.

I also believe that advocates of torture lack the emotional maturity to recognize how torture debases and contaminates the torturer. It is even more dehumanizing to torture than to be tortured. It is a process that leaves a psychic wound on the processor.

On what do you base that belief?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:07 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Essentially, it seems unlikely that a person with empathy could willfully and knowingly inflict pain and suffering without hurting themselves in the process.

There of course may be people without empathy, but then they are already suffering from mental and emotional damage.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Essentially, it seems unlikely that a person with empathy could willfully and knowingly inflict pain and suffering without hurting themselves in the process.

There of course may be people without empathy, but then they are already suffering from mental and emotional damage.

Didn’t you just say that you could knowingly and willingly kill another person and be justified for it if you had reason to believe that your life was in danger? If there was reason to believe that a person had information that could save many lives but refused to talk, why wouldn’t you be just as justified in coercing that person? In one case, you say that killing a person to save another life is acceptable, but coercing a person to save many lives is not?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:36 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

This is the very argument I imagine advocates of torture to be making.

Incidentally, if I ever have to end someone, I expect to suffer psychic damage because of it. I expect it will bother me always.

The answer to your question, of course, is no. When someone is literally about to kill you or someone else, your panoply of options are shrunk to a precious few. All of them bad. You are left only to choose the least possible evil to prevent harm to yourself and others.

However, when you have a captured individual, your options are no longer painfully shrunk to a handful of bad choices. Torture would be a bad choice, not only for its dehumanizing effect, but also for its potential inaccuracy. There is no immediate death you are going to prevent with torture. The Jack Bauer model is a fallacy.

You can't rely on information to be accurate when it is obtained by torture. Torture does not motivate truth. It motivates a scheme to end the pain.

Further, the evidence of torture's lack of effectiveness is plain, in the face of prisoners who needed to be waterboarded dozens of times or more. Prisoners who were tortured for months on end. This does not evidence a critical piece of information needed right now to save a life right now.

Information, even from 'enhanced interrogation' is not unilaterally acted upon. It is compared and contrasted with other sources of intel. It is rated for potential accuracy after review by analysts. It is even compared to other information and statements from the same source. It is a long process, one of a sea of processes, that does not meet the imminent qualifier for the 'hard option.'

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:44 PM

HKCAVALIER

Hey Anthony,

One aspect of authoritarian psychology is that the desire to punish the wicked can be even more important than self preservation. To them it's almost as if violence isn't really violence when it's perpetrated against "the evil doer." Authoritarians don't advocate war and torture to save American lives, so much as they see it as an opportunity to kick some righteous ass.

War is a moral imperative with them.

I see the defenders of torture beginning and ending with the premise, "the terrorists deserved it." If "the terrorists" deserve it, then there is no debate. It's an open and shut case. Torture's effectiveness as the just punishment for wickedness has a long and well respected history. If you disapprove of torture, it means you don't believe "the terrorists" deserve it and thus, you are a terrorist "symp," or you are a child, or you are hopelessly deluded.

So, I tend to see their arguments about "saving lives" as a pretext they reserve for the rest of us weaklings, but they all know what they're really talking about. They hear the dog whistles. They all share the righteous hatred of the evil doer. To them, we're nothing but appeasers, cowards and fools.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

This is the very argument I imagine advocates of torture to be making.

Incidentally, if I ever have to end someone, I expect to suffer psychic damage because of it. I expect it will bother me always.

The answer to your question, of course, is no. When someone is literally about to kill you or someone else, your panoply of options are shrunk to a precious few. All of them bad. You are left only to choose the least possible evil to prevent harm to yourself and others.

However, when you have a captured individual, your options are no longer painfully shrunk to a handful of bad choices. Torture would be a bad choice, not only for its dehumanizing effect, but also for its potential inaccuracy. There is no immediate death you are going to prevent with torture. The Jack Bauer model is a fallacy.

So you claim, but I’m still waiting to hear upon what you base this belief. Because in fact, I can conceive of situations in which the options are painfully small and bad in a case in which a captured individual is your only source of information. Killing in self-defense is just as inaccurate, you don’t know if the person you killed was actually going to kill you, the best you can know is that is what you believed at the time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:58 PM

I always wonder how anyone can look at the European witch "trials" and come away as pro-torture.

People admitted to having sex with the devil and riding around flying on broomsticks, they admitted to brewing magical potions from the flesh of dead children and causing bad weather. They admitted to causing sickness in other people by the mere power of their evil eye.

All this knowing they would be burned at the stake - or beheaded if lucky.

How can anyone consider torture an effective method of coercing truthful information??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:04 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

In the case of self-defense, you have a person who is capable of doing harm, indicating that they are going to do harm, right there in front of you. It's true that they might be giving a false impression. Bravura for the sake of coercion. This is why I say all options at this point are bad options.

In the case of torture, it is an intelligence operation. All intelligence is analyzed and compared with other intelligence. One blurted statement can't be trusted enough to be used to save anybody. That's the Jack Bauer fallacy: That one quick piece of torture will result in one quick piece of information that will unilaterally be acted upon to save the day at the crucial hour.

That's simply not how intelligence agencies do things.

You repeatedly ask how I come to this belief, and I've continuously explained my thinking to you. On what basis do you demur?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I always wonder how anyone can look at the European witch "trials" and come away as pro-torture.

People admitted to having sex with the devil and riding around flying on broomsticks, they admitted to brewing magical potions from the flesh of dead children and causing bad weather. They admitted to causing sickness in other people by the mere power of their evil eye.

All this knowing they would be burned at the stake - or beheaded if lucky.

How can anyone consider torture an effective method of coercing truthful information??

If I get at the fruit of an orange with a sledgehammer, there’s a good chance there won’t be much orange left. It is true that the sledgehammer is not the best orange peeler, but that doesn’t mean that other ways of peeling an orange won’t be effective. One of the problems with the issue of torture is that so few people have the courage to discussion it with any sort of intellectual honesty. When we talk about coercive interrogation we aren’t talking about boiling people in oil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:15 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Finn,

Considering that people under harsh police interrogation have been known to sign confessions to crimes they did not commit...

Do you really think boiling in oil is the magic infliction that gets unreliable information?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

In the case of self-defense, you have a person who is capable of doing harm, indicating that they are going to do harm, right there in front of you. It's true that they might be giving a false impression. Bravura for the sake of coercion. This is why I say all options at this point are bad options.

In the case of torture, it is an intelligence operation. All intelligence is analyzed and compared with other intelligence. One blurted statement can't be trusted enough to be used to save anybody. That's the Jack Bauer fallacy: That one quick piece of torture will result in one quick piece of information that will unilaterally be acted upon to save the day at the crucial hour.

That's simply not how intelligence agencies do things.

You repeatedly ask how I come to this belief, and I've continuously explained my thinking to you. On what basis do you demur?

Sometimes intel is gotten the Jack bauer way. In fact, intel gathered from individual sources has been some of the most crucial. In any case, if intel can be corroborated it is. Much of the time it is not and it can’t be. The accuracy of intel is sometimes a fuzzy subject when the need to act is deemed imperative. That’s just the way the world is. The crucial difference between killing in self defense and the use of coercive interrogation is perhaps that the interrogator is not himself in danger. That doesn’t change the fact that a single piece of intel gathered from a single source could in fact save the lives of innocent people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:26 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Finn, you seem to have more information than me on this issue.

Perhaps if you shared some examples where this was the case, I'd better understand why torture was the critical option.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Finn,

Considering that people under harsh police interrogation have been known to sign confessions to crimes they did not commit...

Do you really think boiling in oil is the magic infliction that gets unreliable information?

--Anthony

I think it is intellectually dishonest to compare coercive interrogation to torturing witches. It is intellectually dishonest to insist that there is no continuum in the degree of coercion that can be applied in interrogation. There are few witch trials in which anyone expected the witch to live. That’s not really in general an accurate description of people detained for interrogation in this country, nor is it what I’m talking about. People have confessed to crimes they didn’t commit under police interrogation that wasn’t harsh. So it’s not always the method of interrogation, sometimes the source is just not reliable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Finn, you seem to have more information than me on this issue.

Perhaps if you shared some examples where this was the case, I'd better understand why torture was the critical option.

I don’t know that there are any real world examples that can be really discussed in much detail. And I’m not really trying to bring up the real world. I’m not trying to convince you to accept any administrations’ policies, whatever they may be. I would simply like you to consider that the issue is much greyer then it is described. Too often people go to extremes on this subject in an attempt to avoid dealing with the subject at all.

Maybe it would be a good idea to find some real world examples. They would necessarily have to be historical examples that are at least 25 years old, because no current events could be discussed on the internet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:45 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Do you believe that information is more reliable when obtained under torture?

Do you believe that reliable information is more quickly acquired under torture?

I'm trying to understand the critical factor of torture that you feel justifies torture, making it superior to other interrogation techniques. What about torture makes it justified as a means of defense? What makes it the better option?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:51 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I will look into incidents where coerced confessions were proven false, to support my belief. It may be I shan't find any. I'm not the very best researcher. :-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Do you believe that information is more reliable when obtained under torture?

Do you believe that reliable information is more quickly acquired under torture?

I'm trying to understand the critical factor of torture that you feel justifies torture, making it superior to other interrogation techniques. What about torture makes it justified as a means of defense? What makes it the better option?

How reliable or quickly information is obtain depends on a lot. But when you are dealing with a hardened subject, such as some of the terrorist we encounter, you have to face the reality that these people are trained true believers. They aren’t going to spill the beans because you arrest them. In some cases, the perceived danger to life may be sufficient to believe that it is necessary to cut through the resolve of a hardened subjected.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I will look into incidents where coerced confessions were proven false, to support my belief. It may be I shan't find any. I'm not the very best researcher. :-)

It probably won’t take the best researcher to find that information. If that’s what you want to believe you will be able to find evidence to support that. I can find plenty of evidence that people get run over while trying to cross the street, and then claim that people should never cross the street. The real test is to find examples of the use of coercive interrogation that worked and decide if that was justified.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:28 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

So far I only have these two examples, as found in the document "Educing Information - Interrogation: Science and Art" by the Intelligence Science Board Phase 1 Report, National Defense Intelligence College.

1) If there was any case whereby harsh interrogation practices would seem justified, it may have been World War II. The world was aware of the atrocities of the Nazi regime and “eye for an eye” seemed to be the rule of the day. The actual record is somewhat surprising: The Western world was so repulsed by the Nazi spectacle that the “high ground” seemed the safest. In fact, the most successful British interrogator was reputedly “Old Tin Eye,” Lieutenant Colonel Robert Stephens at Camp 020, Latchmere House at Ham, on the edge of London. According to his biographer, Alan Judd, his success was a result of thorough preparation by the interrogators, linguistic fl uency, and the right mixture of firmness in questioning and sympathy in handling. Violence of any sort was forbidden. The interrogators who worked at Camp 020 knew the difference between “talking” and “truth.”

2) An account of the conditions in one notorious 13th century inquisitorial prison and their impact on the “truth” paints a grim picture: Some of these cells are dark and airless, so that those lodged there cannot tell if it is day or night…. In other cells there are kept miserable wretches laden with shackles…. These cannot move, but defecate and urinate on themselves. Nor can they lie down except on the frigid ground…. And thus coerced they say that what is false is true, choosing to die once rather than to endure more torture. As a result of these false and coerced confessions not only do those making confessions perish, but so do the innocent people named by them…. Many of those who are newly cited to appear [before the inquisitors], hearing of the torments and trials of those who are detained…assert that what is false is true; in which assertions they accuse not only themselves but other innocent people, that they may avoid the above mentioned pains…. Those who thus confess afterward reveal to their close friends that those things that they said to the inquisitors are not true, but rather false, and they confessed out of imminent danger.

Unfortunately, neither of these examples really meets the criteria of interrogation to get information immediately usable to save lives. I will keep looking.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:44 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I've never seen any where near the rage and anger toward the terrorists as I've seen displayed for those who decided that harsh interrogation, and NOT torture, was worth engaging in when the lives of 1000's of civilians was at risk. The phony, mock indignation of the Left over the NON issue of water boarding is a bit much to take.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:49 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Lieutenant Colonel Robert Stephens

That man was an absolute master of his craft and has my deepest respect not only for that, but for his firm stance against conduct that winds up poisoning the well with garbage.

"Violence is taboo, for not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information"

""Never strike a man, In the first place it is an act of cowardice. In the second place, it is not intelligent. A prisoner will lie to avoid further punishment and everything he says thereafter will be based on a false premise"

He not only broke enemy spies, but in more than one case turned them, and through them their own assets, to the cause of his superiors therefore doubling them against their own intelligence services.

And never, NOT EVEN ONCE, did he have to lift his hand in violence to them in order to do it.

Violence is the last resort of an utterly incompetent interrogator, or one who has a purpose entirely other than obtaining accurate information.

My primary objection to it has always rested on the grounds of it's ineffectiveness rather than any moral stance - but it's true that any commission of violence, even that which is committed in pure self-defense, does harm to the one comitting it as well, just as the use of a hammer damages it, as well as the struck surface.

The latter is a lesson I'd have liked to have learned a lot earlier than I did, to be honest with you.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:03 AM

FREMDFIRMA

As for you Rappy, your own disgusting conduct in combination with sychophantism, blatant racism, partisanship, intolerance and sheer petty spitefulness, on top of the abject cowardice you display at the thought of being fed into the maw of a political war machine you cheered the construction of before it fell under the control of people who do not agree with your own distorted and psychotic worldview, compounded by your complete refusal to accept any notion of a worldview different from yours, has rendered you unworthy of my time and effort beyond merely insulting you because it amuses me to grind your gears.

I'll gladly discuss matters with the other adults around here, but I have no more to discuss with you than I do than an exterminator would have with a nest of roaches, since I personally consider you in exactly the same level of regard.

By all means continue to spew the vile filth you seem to have mistaken for logical argument if you like, just don't expect me to bother paying any mind to it unless by some miracle you show evidence of something that might cause me to consider you a human being.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I always wonder how anyone can look at the European witch "trials" and come away as pro-torture.

People admitted to having sex with the devil and riding around flying on broomsticks, they admitted to brewing magical potions from the flesh of dead children and causing bad weather. They admitted to causing sickness in other people by the mere power of their evil eye.

All this knowing they would be burned at the stake - or beheaded if lucky.

How can anyone consider torture an effective method of coercing truthful information??
If I get at the fruit of an orange with a sledgehammer, there’s a good chance there won’t be much orange left. It is true that the sledgehammer is not the best orange peeler, but that doesn’t mean that other ways of peeling an orange won’t be effective. One of the problems with the issue of torture is that so few people have the courage to discussion it with any sort of intellectual honesty. When we talk about coercive interrogation we aren’t talking about boiling people in oil.

They weren't exactly boiling them in oil, either. Torture 500 years a go was a slow-building process designed to frighten and cause pain, not kill, just as it is now.

The started with plain interrogation, then progressed to show people the instruments that would be used to torture them, procressed to putting the instruments on without pressure, applied slight pressure, and then increased from there.

I don't see how that's necessarily dramatically different from waterboarding or whatever other modern torture techniques are used.

Pain, fear of death, exhaustion... it's all the same.

The point to me is not whether torture is justified under certain circumstances of threat, because that assumes that it is reliable and effective. It is NOT reliable and effective. Therefor it is never justified. You never seem to address that point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
How reliable or quickly information is obtain depends on a lot. But when you are dealing with a hardened subject, such as some of the terrorist we encounter, you have to face the reality that these people are trained true believers. They aren’t going to spill the beans because you arrest them. In some cases, the perceived danger to life may be sufficient to believe that it is necessary to cut through the resolve of a hardened subjected.

But the hardened, fanatical believer seems to be the best person psychologically prepared to withstand torture or lie in the most convincing way to protect the information that means more to them than their life.

Torture would be what they expect. And nothing would be easier than lying, ESPECIALLY if time is of the essence.

It all just seems wholly uneffective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn:

When we talk about coercive interrogation we aren’t talking about boiling people in oil.

No, we're talking about drowning them in water. That's completely different - one is a slow way of killing someone, while the other is a way of killing someone slowly!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Sometimes intel is gotten the Jack bauer way. In fact, intel gathered from individual sources has been some of the most crucial. In any case, if intel can be corroborated it is. Much of the time it is not and it can’t be. The accuracy of intel is sometimes a fuzzy subject when the need to act is deemed imperative. That’s just the way the world is. The crucial difference between killing in self defense and the use of coercive interrogation is perhaps that the interrogator is not himself in danger. That doesn’t change the fact that a single piece of intel gathered from a single source could in fact save the lives of innocent people.

Cites?

You seem unwilling or unable to provide specific examples. Are we to just take your word for it? As you asked Anthony, on what do you base your presumptions?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:57 AM

Rappy bump:

Quote:
Since you insist that waterboarding isn't torture unless it's done to someone in uniform, let me put a scenario to you:

Say the Iranians have tried and convicted a 30-year-old Iranian-American woman - an American citizen not serving in the military or the diplomatic corps - on charges of spying. Now, since she's clearly NOT a soldier, nor wearing the uniform of any recognized armed forces, then they are clearly within their rights to waterboard her, are they not? I mean, they can use whatever means necessary to "break" her, since she is, in essence, a "terrorist" - at least in their eyes, and according to their law.

So you're totally okay with them doing this, yes?

By the way, her name is Roxana Saberi. She was a former contestant in a Miss North Dakota beauty pageant, holds two masters degrees, and is a graduate of Northwestern, with a degree in journalism.

Iran has a golden opportunity here. They can use the exact same methods that the U.S. has used, and we can't say shit about it, OR they can gain international favor by NOT torturing this girl, and then they end up looking more civilized than we do. Either way, it doesn't work out too well for us...

The utter inability to address the question at hand is really showing up your cowardice, Rappy.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:28 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
No, we're talking about drowning them in water. That's completely different - one is a slow way of killing someone, while the other is a way of killing someone slowly!

Any evidence that the U.S. has killed anyone by waterboarding them?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:32 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I've never seen any where near the rage and anger toward the terrorists as I've seen displayed for those who decided that harsh interrogation, and NOT torture, was worth engaging in when the lives of 1000's of civilians was at risk. The phony, mock indignation of the Left over the NON issue of water boarding is a bit much to take.

The fact that you constantly feel the need to express 'rage and anger toward the terrorists' I find more interesting.

The rest of us are calm and objective most of the time in discussing the terrorist threat - why should we be constantly in a rage? Think about it, there's a time for fury and outrage - it's not ALWAYS. That would pretty much make you a crazy person...

I suspect deep down you know this. Either that or you are trying to prove the argument that right wing ideology is 'governed by fear'...?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:36 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Does that it might save lives make it right ?

No. Nothing makes it right to torture someone for information.

However, the prospect of saving lives creates a legal condition known as "exigent circumstances".

Generally this is recognized situations where there is a reasonable belief that life, property, or evidence may be in jeopardy. If this is the case the State may use that as justification to violate a person's Constitutional rights (such as a warrant requirement for entry into a private residence).

"When police have a reasonable and sincere fear that someone is in jeopardy and contraband might be destroyed, this usually constitutes sufficient exigency to justify a simultaneous, no-refusal entry." See McConney, 728 F.2d at 1206; Whitney, 633 F.2d at 909-10.

The harm is still there, so the mere fact that the lives are on the line does not make it right...rather it mitigates the harm...in effect cancelling out the wrong (ie still not right, but no longer wrong).

In order to effectively judge the correctness of the Bush administration's decsion we need to know the basis of that decision (what they reasonably believed) and the results of the interrogation (terror plots uncovered and lives saved). To that end President Obama should have and should now declassify ALL the memos and records. Should any sort of prosecution be undertaken it is likely those additional memos will be declassified by the Court as they would be essential to the defense.

Frankly, it was irresponsible to declassify the torture memos...but the President chose to do it, now it is completely unreasonable to declassify those without the others to give us the "rest of the story".

Cheney says they stopped a 9/11 second wave attack and saved thousands of lives. If thats true, we deserve to know, if its not...we need to know that too.

Truth is Obama is now in a corner. He's stopped these interrogations, then released the memos, which led to us learning the interrogations were effective in stopping attacks. If we are attacked again then he's completely screwed, if he tries to reverse his policy and it comes out, he's completely screwed. He'd have been better off keeping the whole thing secret so he'd have a card to play should we capture a person with information we need when lives are on the line.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:39 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Cites?

You seem unwilling or unable to provide specific examples. Are we to just take your word for it? As you asked Anthony, on what do you base your presumptions?

How about: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

We pretended to drown them...they told us good stuff.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Meanwhile, in today's news.

Quote:
Iraq: Suicide bombs kill scores

Violence is predicted to rise as US troop numbers start to be reduced

In Baghdad, a suicide bomber detonated a belt of explosives as police distributed aid to a crowd of homeless families, killing at least 28 people.

Another suicide bomber attacked a group of Iranian pilgrims in the north-eastern city of Baquba killing at least 45, reports say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8014390.stm

Quote:
Hamas 'killing' Palestinian foes

Hamas must stop killing and torturing its political rivals in Gaza, Human Rights Watch has said.

At least 32 Palestinians have died and several more have been maimed in such cases during and since Israel's January military assault, the group said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8007756.stm

I've tried this exercise before, and usually get the same excuses why no one here expresses any outrage over mass murder while ranting about waterboarding. "It's not our country.", "We need to clean up our own house first", and the old reliable "It's all Bush's fault."

But really, isn't the life of the guy trying to run a fruit stand in a Baghdad market as valuable as that of a suspected terorist? Don't the deaths of kids playing in that market deserve at least a precentage of the rage you exhibit over inhumane, but non-lethal, interrogation?

Sorta makes me wonder if you don't really care about the victims at all, and just want to score debating points.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:13 AM

So if people started a thread of outrage over every suicide bombing taking place, would they then have your blessing to voice their opposition to torture?

What would the point be? Of course people are upset about the carnage and cruelty. What does that have to do with voicing their opposition to torture?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Cites?

You seem unwilling or unable to provide specific examples. Are we to just take your word for it? As you asked Anthony, on what do you base your presumptions?

How about: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

We pretended to drown them...they told us good stuff.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

You mean this memo?

Quote:
"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Yup. Good stuff.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Meanwhile, in today's news.

Quote:
Iraq: Suicide bombs kill scores

Violence is predicted to rise as US troop numbers start to be reduced

In Baghdad, a suicide bomber detonated a belt of explosives as police distributed aid to a crowd of homeless families, killing at least 28 people.

Another suicide bomber attacked a group of Iranian pilgrims in the north-eastern city of Baquba killing at least 45, reports say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8014390.stm

Quote:
Hamas 'killing' Palestinian foes

Hamas must stop killing and torturing its political rivals in Gaza, Human Rights Watch has said.

At least 32 Palestinians have died and several more have been maimed in such cases during and since Israel's January military assault, the group said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8007756.stm

I've tried this exercise before, and usually get the same excuses why no one here expresses any outrage over mass murder while ranting about waterboarding. "It's not our country.", "We need to clean up our own house first", and the old reliable "It's all Bush's fault."

But really, isn't the life of the guy trying to run a fruit stand in a Baghdad market as valuable as that of a suspected terorist? Don't the deaths of kids playing in that market deserve at least a precentage of the rage you exhibit over inhumane, but non-lethal, interrogation?

Sorta makes me wonder if you don't really care about the victims at all, and just want to score debating points.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Of course, there's a very high probability (99%+) that those suicide bombings wouldn't have happened had we not invaded in the first place...

Hell, maybe the Iraqis should start capturing and torturing - er, I mean "harshly interrogating" - OUR guys, to see if they can save any innocent lives.

Would you agree to that?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, the issue is gray. There is a continuum. But morals- at least according to you- shouldn't be. aren't you engaging in moral relativism?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:55 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Frem

More empty, gutless lies and rhetoric from the likes of you. It is patently absurd for anyone to believe that skin color, hair thickness , or any way one defines "race" can be shown to hold any level of superiority. Race is bullshit, and any moron who clings to such superficial guides to gauge another person is nothing but a simplistic , useful idiot. I get so damn tired of seeing the RACIST lie perpetuated by the so called enlightened Left.

Your false, baseless portrayal of me ( an many conservatives ) is a great mental block to you, and also serves as cover so as to avoid havig to deal with real, actual issues of substance.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The discussion has wandered way from rappy's original point, BTW. rappy uses terrorists' actions to justify our less worse ones. The discussion has become a cost/benefit one, which isn't quite the same.

So, to specifically address rappys' point: You're setting the bar very low if the only thing you can claim is that we're "not as bad as them."

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The discussion has wandered way from rappy's original point, BTW. rappy uses terrorists' actions to justify our less worse ones. The discussion has become a cost/benefit one, which isn't quite the same.

So, to specifically address rappys' point: You're setting the bar very low if the only thing you can claim is that we're "not as bad as them."

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

But isn't questioning the presumption of benefit part of that cost/benefit discussion?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

GEEZER:
I've tried this exercise before, and usually get the same excuses why no one here expresses any outrage over mass collateral damage while ranting about suicide bombings. "It's not what we intended.", "They did it on purpose", and the old reliable "It's all Islam's fault." But really, isn't the life of a Sunni family trying to live Mosul as valuable as that of a fruit-stand guy in Baghdad? Don't the deaths of kids playing in that city deserve at least a percentage of the rage you exhibit over suicide bombings? Sorta makes me wonder if you don't really care about the victims at all, and just want to score debating points.

OR, you could substitute Palestinians and Israelis just as well. My point is: A life is a life, whether it is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Israeli or Palestinian, or Russian or a woman or a child or a young man. Whether is was taken specifically or carelessly (collateral damage).

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But isn't questioning the presumption of benefit part of that cost/benefit discussion?

yes, but it wasn't rappy's original point. Also, nobody has addressed his paranoid rantings that "the left" WANTS thousands more killed as part of a power-grab. Rappy's original points have - thankfully- been derailed by more rational ones. I just wanted to go back and address his specifically,

ETA- just to point out what a nut-case he is.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
But isn't questioning the presumption of benefit part of that cost/benefit discussion?
yes, but it wasn't rappy's original point. Also, nobody has addressed his paranoid rantings that "the left" WANTS thousands more killed as part of a power-grab. Rappy's original points have - thankfully- been derailed by more rational ones. I just wanted to go back and address his specifically.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

That's true. Until I just reread it, I had completely forgotten the giggle-fit I had when I first read his post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:20 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Of course people are upset about the carnage and cruelty. What does that have to do with voicing their opposition to torture?

Just makes me wonder why you have to repeatedly voice your outrage over torture that has ceased, and never about the on-going carnage and cruelty. There are currently three or four threads ongoing about waterboarding, but I've never seen any (that I didn't start) about the daily car bomb attacks on civilians throughout the Middle-East and south Asia.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BTW Finn... Your points seem to be primarily imaginary. I can imagine all kinds of scenarios and I'm not talking about real life and I can't provide details.. Yanno what? The script-writers of "24" can imagine all kinds of scenarios too. So can I. But we're talking about REAL LIFE stuff. Real interrogations on real people with real consequences- moral, security, political.

Part of the issue is whether the same information could be gained any other way. The other part is: WHY did they have to waterboard 2 people a total of 266 times? What was THAT all about?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:25 AM